Since its creation (February 9, 2011), the Task Force has met four
times, and it will likely meet two more times this semester.Two of its meetings have been
intra-committee; one has been with Marc Broderick, VP of Development and Alumni
Affairs, at which we discussed the process by which gifts are sought and
approved; and one with Associate Dean Nance Lucas, to discuss the relationship
between the Center for Consciousness and Transformation and the de Laski
Family, which is its primary benefactor. On April 28, the Committee will have a
similar meeting with the Mercatus Center’s Tyler Cowen (General Director) and
Brian Hooks (Chief Operating Office) and Daniel Houser (Chair, Economics) to
discuss these units relationship to the Koch, Charitable Foundation.

In addition to these meetings, the Task Force has also been in
communication with the AAUP National Office as well as with faculty at the
University of North Carolina, Cornell University, and the University of
California—Los Angeles.

All of Task Force’s meetings and communications with external parties
have proven productive.However, a major
obstacle has been the Foundation’s refusal to give the Task Force access to
donor agreements. Marc Broderick has informed us that these are confidential,
that this is explicitly stated in the Virginia Code, that these agreements are
not subject to the Freedom of Information Act, and that all VA public colleges
and universities keep these agreements confidential. Subsequently, in response
to our request, University Counsel Thomas M. Moncure, Jr., has provided the
Task Force with citations to relevant parts of the Virginia Code.The Task Force plans to pursue this issue
further.Among other possible steps, the
Task Force may ask to review only those parts of the agreements, if any, that
specifically pertain to teaching, curriculum and research.

The Task Force is willing to (in fact, it expects
to) present a more extensive preliminary report to the Senate at its May
meeting. And it will make a final report early in the Fall Semester.David Kuebrich

Academic Policies – 2010-2011

During the
2010-2011 academic year the Academic Policies committee focused a great deal on
information gathering rather than on bringing issues to the Senate for debate.
Below summarizes the issues brought to the Senate, as well as on-going work the
committee is currently addressing.

Added: Students who have more than one examination scheduled at the same
time or more than two examinations scheduled on the same day should consult
their instructors to explore whether they can make other arrangements.

2)Change inCatalog Requirements for Degrees

Motion
passed to change the catalog copy to address major and minor degrees listed
under different catalogs. The change was made to allow Bachelor’s degree
candidates to choose to graduate under the terms of any catalog in effect
during their enrollment in degree status.

Additional issues that the committee has
reviewed this year:

1.Change to Spring Academic Calendar – data has been
gathered and reviewed regarding this issue. While some faculty and students are
interested in having more time at the end of the spring semester, the
compelling evidence provided by international programs, CVPA, the Degree
Compliance Office, and other units support keeping the status quo.After
reviewing the pros and cons of changing the calendar, the committee has voted
to NOT change the spring academic calendar at this time.

2.Non-traditional credits
brought into Mason
– discussion continues regarding all credit that Mason allows students to bring
in and the potential challenges the University faces with this credit.More discussion will continue on this issue
with the goal to provide some limitations/guidelines on the total amount
students might be allowed to have on their transcript. This topic is
particularly relevant in light of Mason’s commitment to a Governor’s School in
Prince William County.

3.Honor Code changes – the AP committee is
in the process of determining what, if any, role faculty might play in revising
the Honor Code by-laws. This issue comes from faculty who are concerned about
some of the Honor Code language and faculty expectations with the process.

4.Cross-listing issues – some concerns have
been brought to the committee regarding challenges one department is having
with cross-listing honors students in a senior level class. Based on feedback
from the Registrar’s Office, the recommendation has been made for the
department to deal directly with that office regarding the issue.

5.AP Representation on the
Graduate Council –
concern was raised this year that the Graduate Council acts as an independent
governing body, outside of the Faculty Senate. The question was where, in the
formal structure, is there a role for the AP committee. Through consultation
with the Associate Provost for Graduate Studies, the decision was made to have
an AP member sit on the Council and that, on occasion, the Assoc Provost will
make a presentation to the AP committee.

6.Guidelines for 100, 200,
300, 400-level classes – based on discussions with Academic Deans, it seems a
useful exercise to develop guidelines on what denotes different academic
levels. This is an issue that we will explore more during the next academic
year.

This year, the Budget and Resources Committee provided an
annual Faculty and Administrative Salary Update which is posted on the Faculty
Senate website.In response to a request
from the BOV, we conducted a survey of suggestions on how the University might
improve the quality of life of faculty, excluding raises.A report was sent to the BOV and also posted
on the Faculty Senate website.Members
of the committee regularly attend and participate in the Provost’s Budget
Planning Team meetings, held every two weeks throughout the year.With the assistance of staff from the
Provost’s office, the committee has examined nature of “direct” funding from
extramural sources and in the coming year will examine the ways in which
“indirect” recovered costs are spent.The committee has requested updated information from the Registrar on
the number of individualized course credits generated by department and
college.Upon receipt of these data, we
will survey Chairs, Deans, and Directors regarding current practices for
recognizing faculty contributions in this area as well as the disposition of
funds generated.In addition, the
committee is evaluating the nature of summer salary concerns across departments
and colleges.

The Faculty Senate Nominations Committee has conscientiously
filled every vacancy on every Senate Standing Committee, every University
Committee, and every ad hoc committee and task force where Faculty
representation was required.

The
Academic Appeals Committee had one case during the 2010-2011 academic year in
which the committee considered a student termination case.After review of the case, the committee’s
decision was to uphold the university's decision to terminate the student.The only other item of business conducted was
to elect a chair.

A.On April
7, 2011, the University Admissions committee met. There was no old business
pending, and no new business was presented. Assistant Dean Tallent shared with
us the statistical information that follows in letter heading B.

B. Assistant Dean Tallent released statistics and
information to the committee pertaining to undergraduate applications and
admissions to George Mason University. As of April 19, 2011:

1) More than
18,000 freshman applications were submitted this year, an increase of almost
500 over last year (marking the largest freshman applicant pool ever for
Mason).

2) 9,200 were
admitted; up from 8,900 at end of cycle last year.

3) The class target is 2600;
there is a healthy waitlist to make sure that number is attained.The confirmation deadline for freshmen is May
1, 2011.

4) The criteria
for Honors College selection was elevated for this admissions cycle to reflect
the higher profile of applications being received and to help limit Honors
College enrollment.

5) We have
received a 5% increase in transfer applications. Since these students do not
have to respond until July 1, it is too early to predict enrollment outcomes
for transfers.

6)The transfer articulation agreement with NVCC expired
February 23, 2011. The new Guaranteed Admission Agreement (GAA) became
effective for fall on February 23. The new GAA has a graduated increase
in the minimum GPA (2.75 to 3.0) required for admission by fall 2013. If
all coursework is not completed atNVCC,
the same minimum GPA is required at all other institutions within the last five
years. Additionally, two English composition courses and one general
education math course are required at NVCC with grades of C or better.

GAA's are specific to each community college. We have also signed with Germanna CC, Lord Fairfax CC and Blue Ridge CC

2011 Report to the Faculty Senate by the Faculty Athletic Representative

The Athletic Council met in
September to complete its work for the NCAA Certification process before the
NCAA site visit in October.On March 3, 2011 President Merten wasinformed that the NCAA Division I Committee
determined that George Mason University has been certified. As a “certified”
institution, Mason has earned the NCAA’s highest designation and shown that its athletics program “operates” in
substantial conformity with operating principles adopted by the Division I
membership.

The November meeting was chaired
during my absence by Bob Baker and introduced new members, and elected chairs
for the sub-committees.In February, the
council met to propose the sub-committee work to be completed before the final
meeting.The sub-committees met
separately to conduct business relative to the council’s work.

The committee reviewed all violations and waivers reported
by the Compliance Office for 2010-11.Paul Bowden, Associate AD for Compliance attended the April meeting to
give an overview of Compliance and answer any questions from the council.The Athletic department continues to do an
excellent job of oversight of Rules Compliance through meetings with coaches,
the student-athlete handbook, and the Compliance website (GoMason.com).Rogers reported the NCAA recently introduced
legislation that will assist many student-athletes receiving Federal and State
Need- Based Financial Aid.(Governance and Commitment to Rules
Compliance Sub-committee 2011 Report)

Academic Integrity
Sub-committee (Chair, Eddie Tallent)

Associate Athletic
Director for Academic Services Debbie Wilson gave a tour of the computer lab
and facilities for student-athletes.Wilson stressed the importance of student-athletes receiving a
meaningful mid-term evaluation by faculty.Since Academic Services was very thoroughly reviewed during the just
completed self-study, no further action by the committee is needed at this
time.

The committee reviewed all seven areas of the Equity in
Athletics Disclosure Act (EADA) report submitted each year by the university
(complete report available at GoMason.com under the Student-Athlete tab and
then under Compliance) and determined the university was in compliance

The Faculty Athletic Representative met with the Student
Athlete Advisory Council to promote the distribution and completion of the 2011
Exit Surveys. In person interviews with graduating students are being conducted
by the Faculty Athletic Representative and are ongoing until the end of
term.(Gender, Diversity and Student Well-Being Sub-committee 2011 Report)

2009-10
Student-Athlete Statistics

In the 2009-2010 academic year student-athletes were
compared with the general student body with the following results:

Student
AthletesStudents
Generally

2.992.98

* All GPA statistics computed by the Office of the Registrar

In conclusion, I would like to thank each member for their
commitment to excellence and invaluable guidance and support.

The Teaching Excellence Committee met on November 17, 2010, with Kris
Smith and staff from the Office of Research regarding electronic teaching
evaluations. The status of the teaching electronic teaching evaluation program
is: 1) the staff did not realize at the outset how large and complex moving
from atoms to bits would be, and the program has been slow in its realization;
2) the principle problem with the electronic evaluations is student
participation--which hovers around the 20 percent mark and which is far lower
than the paper evaluation participation rates; 2) the research group is working
on a number of fronts to increase student participation and modify the
evaluation form for distance education courses; and 3) despite low
participation rates, the Colleges of Science and Business have implemented the
electronic evaluation program across the board. These results were reported to
the Faculty Senate on December 8, 2010. No further business came before the
committee.

State Government
Relations. The Committee on External Academic Relations (CEAR) met once in
the fall semester and once in the spring semester. In both meetings, the
committee met with the State Government Relations Director (Betty Jolly). Ms.
Jolly provided the committee with an update on legislative activities in
Richmond. In the fall, this included information on a Higher Education
Committee chaired by Tom Farrell and Kurt Cox. In the spring, this included
information about bills that had passed, how Mason had fared in Richmond in
this session, and projects she has planned for the summer.

In the fall, she asked for faculty feedback on the state
government relations website: https://mymasonportal.gmu.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp.
In the spring meeting, she stated that she finds that the site needs to be
re-organized and designed. She asked for suggestions on how to improve
communications with faculty. The committee suggested a daily blog during the
legislative session focusing on issues relevant to Mason. The committee will
ask the Faculty Senate to provide a link to this blog (and the general web
site) from somewhere on the senate page to facilitate faculty getting access to
this information.

The committee also suggested that the Faculty Senate host a
forum after the legislative session each year (somewhat akin to the budget
forums done by Drs. Scherrens and Stearns). This would allow faculty to get a
summary of the actions in Richmond that affect us.

Ms. Jolly also provided information the Higher Education
Bill; she will provide the committee with a powerpoint presentation
highlighting the contents of this bill. She also talked about the Higher
Education Advisory Council which has been established (as a result of this
bill) to look at a number of higher education issues. At this time, the council
has four members, one of whom is Dr. Merten. There is also a Research Bill that
was passed which focuses on industry-university partnerships.

Finally, Ms. Jolly informed the committee that she intends
to hold training sessions on how the legislature works, how best to provide
briefings and information to members of the legislature, and Mason priorities
for the upcoming session. She plans to hold two training sessions this summer
and one in the fall before the new legislative session. She will reach out to
faculty who have been involved in Richmond already and ask that others who are
interested sign up for this training.

Faculty Senate of
Virginia.One member of this
committee serves as the official Mason representative to the Faculty Senate of
Virginia. Ms. Earley, who is that representative, and Ms. Boehm-Davis,
committee chair, have kept informed of the activities sponsored by this organization
through information sent out by the organization. There is no information of
note to report from that organization in this academic year.

Other Activities. Committee members were
invited to attend a Legislative Round Table reception where several local
legislators were invited to come and hear about the university. Two members of
the committee were able to attend this meeting and discuss exciting work being
done by faculty within the university. Finally, members of the committee
coordinated questions being posed to Chap Peterson and David Bulova, who
attended a special faculty meeting on April 20. Committee members collected
questions from faculty members and coordinated the Q&A session at the April
meeting.

The University General Education Committee
worked vigorously this academic year on the following items, all of which were
continued from last year and, with modifications, will continue next year:

meeting
the challenges of SACS reaffirmation of accreditation as applicable to
general education

considering
new course proposals for inclusion in the general education inventory

strategic
thinking about the future of general education, both at Mason and in a
national context of comparable universities.

What follows will expand a bit on each of the
bullets above, but first there are a couple of compulsory reporting points
included in our committee’s charge from the Senate.

1. Proficiency/placement exams:
Statistics are characteristically incomplete as of this date; we will submit an
addendum early in the fall semester with these data.

2. Changes in the criteria for general
education: There were no substantive changes in overall criteria.

SACS, Gen Ed learning outcomes, and assessment
process

We are pleased to note that the SACS off-site
review team found the general education program and its assessment protocol to
be acceptable, with no comments, suggestions, or the dread
recommendations.Hats off to the faculty
who design and deliver the curriculum, the GE committee, and the assessment
staff; this is no small achievement.

Because the assessment process is dedicated to
meaningful quality improvement as well as compliance and accountability, we are
continuing the process beyond the SACS reaffirmation, albeit at a somewhat more
deliberate pace.Currently, the IT
category is undergoing the course portfolio process and the review will be
conducted this summer by interdisciplinary teams including GE committee
members.

The College of Science has been engaged in a
spirited discussion this year around revising SLOs in Natural Science area, and
we anticipate committee action on these in the fall, with a portfolio cycle to
follow.Quantitative Reasoning, Written
Comm, and Oral Comm will complete the revision of SLOs over the next two
years.

Portfolio reviews of the Global,
Social/Behavioral Sciences, and Synthesis areas this year showed evidence of
strong teaching and learning across the three areas, along with many examples
of innovative assignments and course designs.As with the first three areas assessed, a general finding emerged around
the broad theme of intentionality. In most cases, the only recommended action
was to highlight more prominently the ways in which the course connects to the
larger aims of a liberal education, whether in syllabus language or
lecture/discussion time, or both.

A second emergent theme, especially in the Global and SBS areas that contain
some large-section courses, was the difficulty of assessing student work vis-à-vis
alignment with gen ed SLOs when the only assignments or evaluative instruments
were multiple choice exams.The
committee is discussing how to handle such courses in future.Meanwhile, one aspect of the
currently-pending SEGUE grants has to do with encouraging innovative approaches
to student work product in large classes—a happy instance of an assessment
finding generating a positive response with resources attached.

As we noted last year in this space, this work
has been labor-and-thought-intensive for the general education committee (as
well as for the chairs and faculty in the affected units and the Provost’s
Office), and we owe them a special word of thanks. The results continue to be
very useful to us as we go about the essential work of ensuring a sound liberal
education for our undergraduates.

Complete Inventory Review

Unfinished business from the year includes a
100% coverage syllabus review of the existing gen ed inventory for currency
regarding alignment with new SLOs where they exist.The committee delegated this task to the
staff, and it is planned for summer 2011.

Course Proposals

The committee considered 28 and approved 11 new
courses for the general education inventory, with the others being sent back
for revision or clarification. We expect
resubmission of the majority of the returned courses.This compares to last year’s total of 26
considered, 22 approved.The course
approval process, while still occasionally taking longer than desirable,
continues to become more straightforward, consistent, and rigorous.The committee has also made a sincere effort
to reduce paper consumption by using a portal for posting proposals and
minutes, and a projector during meetings for their consideration.

Strategic Thinking about General Education

The committee continued its lively discussion of
the aims and purposes of general and liberal education, and the committee’s
role in advancing Mason’s program.A
particularly interesting theme has emerged this year around the concept of
interdisciplinarity in the Synthesis requirement: how is it defined, how do we
know it when we see it, are certain disciplines inherently interdisciplinary by
virtue of their creation out of a merging of preexisting fields?

Role of the Committee vis-à-vis faculty and unit
prerogatives (We repeat this section from last year’s report
not because of any specific issue during the year but because it is an
important reminder)

Any time an academically polyglot committee
standing outside of a department, college, or school reviews the work of a
faculty member or a discipline-based curriculum committee, the possibility of
blurring roles and lines of demarcation exists, and misunderstandings may
ensue.Such is sometimes the case when
the gen ed committee refers a course back to the submitting unit with
recommended changes prior to approval for inclusion in the gen ed program.

The committee wishes the general faculty to know
that it is always respectful of the disciplinary expertise and pedagogical
autonomy of the faculty member submitting the course, as well as the integrity
of the various levels of unit review that precede submission to the gen ed
program.When courses are returned for
further review, this is always a subject of open discussion, and it is never
the committee’s intention to become involved with disciplinary matters that
properly belong to the department, college, or school.Rather, the committee takes its charge as one
of evaluating alignment of a given course with the general education mission of
the university, a mission that necessarily transcends unit lines.Courses that are returned for revision are
typically exemplary in their discipline but, in the committee’s judgment, are
incompletely aligned with some aspect of general education, and so with all
appropriate caution and deference, the committee feels obligated to suggest
and/or request adjustments prior to approval.To do less would be to deprive the university of broad-based,
faculty-driven stewardship of the general education program.The committee appreciates the creativity and
energy of the faculty in developing new courses for general education and
simply wishes to make its principles known to lessen the possibility of
discomfort and misunderstanding in those cases where a course is not approved,
or is returned for revision.

The charge of the MDIC is “to work in concert with the Equity Office,
Minority Students Services Office, other pertinent administrators, and campus
organizations in developing and implementing means to ensure nondiscrimination,
tolerance, and protection of the rights of all persons affiliated with the
University; and to facilitate dialogue among those connected with the
University and those in the broader community on matters concerning minority
populations and diversity issues.”

The MDIC was
quite productive throughout the year, with activities involving following up on
various activities from the previous years of accomplishment, to creating a new
initiative.In short, the MDIC members
were interested in obtaining a greater understanding of the quality of the work
place environment, with primary attention to faculty members.

One of the
initial activities of the MDIC was to learn what progress had been made with
the Diversity Statement.During the
previous academic year, the MDIC was successful in obtaining endorsements from
the Faculty Senate, the Staff Senate and the Student Senate.The MDIC learned that this statement would be
presented to the administration’s leadership group, with an aim of having it
more public and available for the Mason community.During the year, however, MDIC members
learned of no progress that had been obtained regarding this effort.

The MDIC
reviewed the status of student enrollment information based
on minority/non-minority status, as well as gender, for each academic
department.This was found on the Office
of Institutional Assessment website.One suggestion is that a Mason leadership group could summarize and
provide this to each department head.It
was also suggested that departmental information would be helpful with
comparisons with university-based information for these variables.

Another
accomplishment during this year was the review of the items
relevant to diversity issues that had been included on Mason’s Quality of Work
Life Survey, distributed in Spring, 2009. The MDIC reviewed the Executive
Summary, and was successful in having discussions with the Quality of Work Life
Committee regarding the use of these items.The MDIC also engaged Dr. Lou Buffardi, who oversees the data analysis
functions; he provided additional analysis of the data, beyond the executive
summary report, and met with the MDIC to discuss the findings.Interest was expressed by MDIC members for
further analysis, with specific attention to faculty and their response
patterns; Dr. Buffardi indicated that he would pursue this.However, by the time of this annual report,
this additional analysis had not yet occurred.The MDIC also determined that, since the next Quality of Work Life
Survey would undoubtedly occur during Spring, 2012, the best approach for
handling new questions regarding minority and diversity issues would be to
incorporate no change for 2012.What is
important is to maintain consistency over time so that comparisons could be
made within the university as a whole as well as within individual units.

The MDIC also
discussed ways in which colleges and organizational units could monitor
progress with minority and diversity issues. Discussions were engaged regarding
activities that would help identify best practices, as well as learn ways in
which organizational units could initiate appropriate action on diversity
issues.The sense of the MDIC was that
Mason’s administrative units should be responsible for further promoting this
effort.

The final
activity of the MDIC was the development of a ‘sense’ of the MDIC members
regarding the status of minority and diversity issues at Mason.This was deemed desirable by MDIC members to
promote further dialog and action regarding diversity issues at the
university.This was prepared through
discussions among MDIC members, and is based on their observations,
experiences, and interactions with others on campus.This is included as an appendix to this
annual report.

MINORITY AND
DIVERSITY ISSUES AT MASON

Prepared by Minority and Diversity Issues
Committee

University Standing Committee - George Mason
University

April 18, 2011

The
Minority and Diversity Issues Committee (MDIC) is charged “to work in concert with the Equity Office, Minority
Students Services Office, other pertinent administrators, and campus
organizations in developing and implementing means to ensure nondiscrimination,
tolerance, and protection of the rights of all persons affiliated with the
University; and to facilitate dialogue among those connected with the
University and those in the broader community on matters concerning minority
populations and diversity issues.”

During
the 2010-11 academic year, the five-member committee determined that it would
be helpful to prepare some perspectives about minority and diversity issues at
Mason. This is based on the committee members’ years of involvement and
engagement on campus, dialog with other faculty members, participation on the
MDIC, and a commitment to promoting a healthier campus community. These
perspectives are organized within six thematic areas, and offer insights as well
as suggested action items.

1.Institutional Support

MDIC
members believe that Mason has a significant level of support for multicultural
issues.MDIC members agree that Mason
is engaged in many efforts to promote a healthy institution that supports
people from diverse backgrounds. The university appears to be evolving as new
issues vis-à-vis diversity emerge; Mason leadership appears to be supportive of
“doing the right thing,” whether or not formal policies can be put into place.
For example, the recently-configured LGBTQ Campus Climate Task Force was
established in response to the rash of suicides around the country, which were
apparently a result of campus bullying of people in the LGBTQ communities.In short, Mason appears to follow the
philosophy of the Diversity Statement developed by the MDIC in previous years.
While the support appears present, public statements by university leadership
on diversity issues appear minimal. Further, the composition of the faculty as
a whole, as well as Mason’s administrative leadership, does not reflect the
diversity found within the student body.

Suggestions
include increased public leadership, visibility, vocal pronouncements, and
infusion of diversity and inclusion issues by Mason leadership into the
routine, day-to-day activities.MDIC
members suggest that the highest levels of the administration would also be
well served to recruit and to encourage units to recruit people from diverse
backgrounds at all levels of the university.

2.Faculty Development

It
is clear that Mason’s student body is highly diverse, and it is also clear that
attention is provided for student training and personal development
opportunities (i.e., Safe Zone training). However, Mason offers few
opportunities for faculty to learn more about diversity and inclusion issues.
MDIC members believe there is no incentive for faculty members to be trained in
such issues.MDIC members are aware of
few discussions about diversity or training on diversity or multi-cultural
issues within units around the university in recent years.Further, it appears that faculty members are
unaware of many issues incorporated in the diversity framework (such as the
concepts of gender identity and expression), and that people in the units do
not generally discuss these diversity issues.While some reports exist of faculty behavior or comments in the
classroom that are not particularly sensitive or appropriate (from a diversity
and inclusion perspective), educating faculty on these issues does not appear
to be a high priority with the institutional leadership. In many cases, these
insensitive comments do not come from a place of intentional bias or hatred but
may simply spring from a lack of understanding of the issues.

The
MDIC membership believes it would be helpful to have greater institutional
support and leadership, throughout the university, regarding faculty engagement
with diversity issues.Attention to the
intent and spirit of the Diversity Statement, regarding locally-focused
leadership and attention regarding diversity issues should be helpful.

3.Quality of Work Life Survey

The
Quality of Work Life Survey has been undertaken every three years over the past
decade, with the most recent data collection occurring during Spring, 2009. The
MDIC is particularly appreciative of the attention to minority and diversity
issues with the instrument being used; during the most recent survey
administration, new questions were added and data analyzed.The data analysis process provided information
helpful for the MDIC and institutional leadership, as the questions
incorporated had the data clustered in three thematic areas. While the data
were presented to the MDIC, it appears that the data and information have not
been used to its full potential.The
information was prepared with an executive summary, but it was not widely
distributed; therefore any results which might have been incorporated into
campus initiatives were not shared.Further, the data, and the clusters relevant to minority and diversity
issues, could be examined to a much greater level, both by faculty role as well
as by academic unit.In short, it
appears, from the perspective of the MDIC, that the data have not been used
well.

MDIC
members believe that support must be provided to this ongoing data collection
effort.With the tremendous amount of
time and effort provided by the Quality of Work Life Committee and faculty
members preparing and responding to the survey, it seems most appropriate to
invest in further analysis and use of the data. Support is needed to further
analyze the data at both macro and micro (departmental/college) levels;
distribute its findings; and, publicize ways in which the information is being
used.

4.Diversity Statement

During
the 2008-2009 academic year, the MDIC drafted a Diversity Statement for Mason,
included as part of the annual report during Spring, 2009. The Diversity
Statement was deemed necessary and appropriate because of the lack of such a
statement; the desire was to more clearly and publicly specify the nature and intent
of diversity at this institution, going beyond the limited statement in the
university’s mission statement.The
2009-2010 MDIC endorsed this statement, and was successful in achieving
endorsements from the Faculty Senate, the Staff Senate, and the Student Senate
during Spring, 2010.This Diversity
Statement has been shared with the Office of Equity and Diversity Services,
with the hope that it would be incorporated into the university’s web site at
some appropriate places. To date, this has not occurred, and the statement,
endorsed by all three Senates, remains as an endorsed statement with no further
public visibility.

The
MDIC believes that this statement should be available through multiple channels
at the university.It reflects a
positive, proactive commitment to diversity and inclusion at the
university.While not a policy per se,
the statement provides an opportunity to demonstrate that the university
promotes leadership in diversity issues and that the university’s priority is
to the whole range of diversity issues.The MDIC believes that this document can be referred to by a wide
variety of campus groups, as well as to the university leadership.

5.Resources on Diversity Issues

MDIC
members are aware of several academic and other units engaging in activities
and services on diversity issues. This information appears to be limited and is
not gathered systematically. In short, there is limited knowledge about who is
doing what, who has expertise, and who has interest in the range of diversity
issues.To help promote greater
attention to diversity issues, the MDIC believes it would be helpful to have an
inventory of resources that highlight various resources, services, and
personnel on campus. It would also be helpful to have an inventory of best
practices, upon which academic or other units could learn and build.

The
MDIC specifically recommends the development and promotion of an inventory of
best practices; an expertise database; and a sharing of areas of research and
interest. Within the context of a learning community, diversity could be
promoted and more actively infused throughout the university.

6.Support for Faculty

The
need for attention to diversity and inclusion at Mason among faculty members
has been identified by the MDIC as a priority.In addition, the question remains regarding how those faculty members
feel about their engagement, support, and inclusion at the university.This can be at the departmental, college,
and/or university level. Specifically, it is unknown how individuals who are
diverse (through any of the areas that might be classified as “diverse,” by
themselves or others) feel for themselves. Anecdotal information shared among
MDIC members suggests that many individuals are fearful and do not feel
particularly welcomed or supported.Further, it appears that faculty members are not sure where to turn for
personal support, or for consultation about better dealing with diversity
issues within the university.While
students have an ombudsman for such queries, it does not appear that faculty
has a similar resource or service, other than going through the resources in
Human Resources.The aim should be to
enhance the feeling of being welcomed and supported.In short, while many faculty members do feel
supported, an underlying fear does exist among some members of diverse
backgrounds.

The MDIC strongly recommends that more information
be gathered to further understand the nature and scope of concerns among
faculty members regarding diversity issues. This query can be undertaken among
faculty members. Inquiries should be made regarding their feelings for
themselves, and how they perceive others.Further, the MDIC believes that appropriate faculty support services
(such as an ombudsman for faculty) would be beneficial.

The
NIAL Committee met in January and has identified a need to develop a fuller
vision of its goals and functions so that it could move forward.The functions of NIAL used to be out of the Extended
Studies program and the committee views distance education and distributed
learning as important areas for possible further development.One concern was that GMU will no longer be
able to be the affordable alternative for education in the area if it does not
respond to new economic realities. These new realities could provide
opportunities for GMU but also threats to its future survival.Several committee members agreed that there
was a need to adjust to new markets, conditions, and nontraditional
players. The Committee has also discussed the goal of speaking to
expanded audiences and in nontraditional ways, helping individuals to
“reinvent” themselves and move in new careers or directions in their lives.
This would include bringing in older adults and reaching returning
students. A distributed learning template could be important to
implementing such a vision. A related issue was the idea of reaching out
to the community. A variety of populations might be served such as retired
individuals or individuals seeking additional professional certification.However, the committee had a lively
discussion on whether the emphasis of such efforts should mainly be on academic
education, not just job certification. The committee also noted the needs of
transfer students who make up about 25% of the 2,500 freshman admissions each
year, but are an underserved population. It was observed that there are
seemingly fewer resources to support them on campus than there are for other
freshmen.

There was discussion about how one could control a
program that by necessity would cross disciplines? It was suggested that the
Interdisciplinary Collaboration Committee group could be a possible partner and
that we could meet with them.The
committee is seeking to find what is being done in different departments,
programs, committees.Collaborative
programs, Centers, and minors, might be a way to serve some non-traditional
students.The Sport Communication minor across Communication and HR&T is one such
example.A member of NIAL has had
informal contact with Goodlett McDaniel about some of the distance learning
issues we have discussed and the committee is planning to meet with him and
others in the near future.These include
someone from University Relations because they might be able to “see the
forest through the trees,” as well as Dean Flagel at the Admissions office
which is in effect the university’s outreach program.Because of schedules, there has been delay in
planning additional meetings

The committee has met bi-monthly during the academic year to
discuss the development of a data analysis plan to examine equity in faculty
salaries on a variety of dimensions. Kris Smith has assisted us by obtaining
and conducting preliminary data analysis related to faculty salaries including
race, gender, faculty rank, and unit variables. At this stage, data analysis is
still under way and we expect a full report regarding the status of faculty
salary equity in September 2011. We recently obtained a previous report
conducted in 1996 by a previous version of this committee as well as their
responses to feedback from the Faculty Senate regarding their process. We are
utilizing their methods as a guide to inform our data analysis. We are also
examining the methodologies used by other, similar universities when conducting
faculty salary equity studies.

The Faculty Senate Technology Policy Committee (FSTPC) will
have met six times in the 2010-2011 academic year. The final meeting is
scheduled for May 9, 2011.

October
18, 2010

·Election of Stanley Zoltek as committee chair

Walt Sevon

Review of email migration status:

New
students are on MasonLive; for others, migration will be forced over the
next six weeks.

Microsoft
offers capabilities beyond mail, and we hope as time passes to encourage
other academic uses.

There
was an initial problem with mail from gmu.edu going to spam; however, this
appears to be fixed.

For
a faculty mail system, a committee will be formed to select a vendor.
Calendar integration will be considered. There are security issues with
which the legal department is involved. The initiative has no budget at
present; the next time money may be available is in the 2012-2013 academic
year.

Faculty
mail system has additional requirements that the student system does not –
privacy, discovery, back-end functions; however, it might be possible to
enhance the current system to make it usable for faculty.

Alumni
Office is working to get alumni on the student email system, eventually
replacing the current forwarding service. The goal for students graduating
in December is to have their Mason email addresses stay “live.”

Sharon Pitt

Review of technology classroom situation

A
technology classrooms subcommittee has been formed from the Classroom
Advisory Committee to look at classroom challenges.

Arlington
and Prince William campuses are in good shape (or at least Arlington will
be once Founders Hall opens)

For
Fall, 2011, Fairfax campus will have a net loss of fifteen classrooms due
to renovations. This is in addition to the current shortfall (40 sections
requested technology classrooms in Fall 2010 but did not get them)

Priority
is for rooms with 20-30 seats, rooms with 70+ seats, and technology
classrooms with student computers, as these are seen as the primary
trouble areas.

One
idea being considered in lieu of lab classrooms – netbooks with a checkout
option so that students can bring their own computers to class.

Review of Blackboard/WebCT status

Version
9.1 is being piloted this semester; will be available to all interested
faculty in the spring.

One
transition issue raised was about Banner integration so that rosters don’t
have to be maintained manually.

Discussed
training needs. One suggestion—have a quasi-consulting capability to sit
down with a faculty member and assist them with transition.

November 15, 2010

Walt Sevon – Walt
provided the information below based on a request from the committee. The
committee had heard that students could not access Google Docs from MasonLive.

Yes. However, to access materials through Google Docs, you must create an account (register your MASONLIVE e-mail address) with Google Docs.

·Scheduling of electronic classrooms

December 13, 2010

Sharon Pitt

·Introduction of Joy Taylor, Director of Learning Support Services

·Joy Taylor

Update on current plans on the transition from CEB to Blackboard 9.1

Walt Sevon– There was concern from the committee about the name being displayed on student e-mail with MasonLive. There were two concerns. First, that the display name can be changed. That is true and it has always been true for student e-mail if they used a client such as Thunderbird or Outlook. The second concern was the name was not showing up when a faculty member typed in a student’s e-mail address. It will show up on a client such as Thunderbird or Outlook if configured correctly. If it does not the faculty member can contact the ITU Support Center and ask that a e-mail be reconfigured. More information is below.

·Name displayed when using MasonLive--Walt
Sevon

Walt.Sevon<wsevon@masonlive.gmu.edu>

The display name is the name that is displayed in quotes before
the actual e-mail address; For example, the display name above is: "Walt.Sevon"

The actual e-mail address is "wsevon@masonlive.gmu.edu." The first
part of the e-mail address, "wsevon", is
the "NetId" or "username" and is
a unique identifier for Mason faculty, staff, and students. It cannot be
changed by MasonLive users.

Students using MasonLive have the ability to change
their display name but cannot change their NetId. The
NetId is clearly shown on all e-mail addresses. The
ability to change the display name is part of MasonLive
and allowed by Microsoft and cannot be prevented by Mason administrators.

MEMO users who use the MEMO Web Interface or who set up a mail
client like Outlook or Thunderbird have access to the Enterprise directory
(LDAP) and can look up an email address to discover the owner. We do not
allow account owners to change their name information in LDAP. Likewise, MasonLive users can access the Global Address List (GAL) in
MasonLive and match a NetId
to the owner provided the owner has not elected FERPA privacy, in which case
they are concealed from the GAL.

Coordination and clarity of ITU Alerts – The
committee had received complaints that the ITU Alerts were not clear had had too much “tech speak.” Walt took this for action and
said he would coordinate with the ITU Support Center

January 31, 2011

Sharon Pitt

Increasing the number of technology classrooms on the Fairfax campus

Blackboard Collaborate

Walt Sevon - Technology Systems Division

MasonLive Update

As of late November 2010, all student email is on MasonLive. On February
6, student access to the MEMO email accounts will be removed. Students
will no longer have access to emails remaining in that account. Simple
instructions have been provided for migrating any mail from the MEMO accounts
to MasonLive since the rollout began in August 2010. Moving forward, mail
sent to the students at either their "@gmu.edu" address or their
"@masonlive.gmu.edu" address will all be routed to the MasonLive
accounts. As of this time, there are a number of unclaimed accounts on
MasonLive; however, we believe those accounts are dormant based on the number
of times and various methods we have attempted to reach out to the account
owners over the past six months.
Information Technology (IT) Security Training

The Commonwealth of Virginia requires state institutions to provide mandatory
security training for all faculty, staff and students. To reduce the
burden on our users, the Information Technology Unit is fulfilling the training
requirement by implementing an on-line quiz about security. The quiz will
ask the user to respond to a small set of questions. It allows the user
to attempt each question multiple times until he/she answers correctly, thereby
fulfilling the training requirement. The quiz will be administered
as part of the password change process. A pilot group will test the quiz
starting in mid-February with a goal of implementing the quiz by mid-March.

Password Updates

The majority of faculty/staff/students routinely change their
passwords, but some do not. For those users that have not changed their
passwords in the past year, they will need to change their password at some
point, most likely in March 2010. The exact date is uncertain since it
will follow after the online security quiz has been implemented. A
communication strategy is being developed. In order to ensure users
are supported through the process, password expiration will be phased over
three months and not done all at one time.

New Faculty/Staff E-Mail System

During the spring semester we will begin the process of selecting a new e-mail
system for faculty and staff to replace the current MEMO system. The new system
could be a free system hosted off-site, a new system hosted here at Mason and
supported by ITU staff, or a fee-based, e-mail system hosted off-site by a
commercial messaging vendor.

The first step will be to organize a cross-functional team to look at
requirements. This process is already underway. What features should the
new system support and how? Different team members will likely have
requirements based on their own functional perspective (e.g. archiving,
e-discovery, accessibility, security, privacy). We will develop our list of
requirements in two categories: must have features and nice to have features.

The next step will be to determine what hosted e-mail offerings are available
in the marketplace and their associated cost structure. We will survey other
universities, including Virginia institutions, regarding their experiences.
These steps will help the team with the final step which is the development of
a Request for Proposals (RFP). Even if we are interested in a free hosted
solution we will still need to go through an RFP process.

We have asked the Staff Senate, student Orientation Leaders, student Resident Technicians, staff members of the Portfolio Evaluation Committee, TSD Managers and the faculty of the Psychology Department to pilot the IT security training application.

As background, the Commonwealth of Virginia requires state institutions to provide mandatory IT security training for all faculty, staff and students. To reduce the burden on our users, the Information Technology Unit is fulfilling the training requirement by implementing an on-line quiz about security. The quiz will ask the user to respond to a small set of questions. It allows the user to attempt each question multiple times until he/she answers correctly, thereby fulfilling the training requirement. The quiz will be administered annually as part of the password change process. The questions will change each year.

Pilot testing includes changing ones password, taking the security quiz, and giving us feedback and suggested improvements. The hardest part is changing the password on a person's Smartphone if they use the Smartphone for email or calendaring. We will give them instructions for changing their passwords. The total time should take between 15 - 30 minutes including feedback. We will send out the instructions early this week and we would like to get the feedback by March 18.

For FSTPC members who would like to participate in pilot testing please send your NetId (NetId is your username on email as NetId@gmu.edu), or email address to AdheetGaddamanugu at agaddama@gmu.edu. He will then send instructions to each person.

The pilot was conducted and excellent
feedback was received from the participants. The feedback was used to update
the application. Starting in May 2011, Mason staff will be the first Mason
group required to complete this annual training with their next scheduled
password change.To minimize the impact
of the change, faculty and students will not be required to complete the annual
training until after the fall semester is underway.

A small number of faculty use MESA,
Mason’s online file sharing system.Currently, the passwords of MESA users expire and must be renewed
periodically.If the password of a faculty
member who uses MESA expires between now and the fall, the faculty member will
be asked to take the training at the same as the password renewal.The new password will give the user access to
many Mason online systems including Blackboard, Mason e-mail, Patriot Web and other
Banner Services, and Virtual Private Network (VPN).

In May 2011, the IT Security
Awareness Training (ITSAT) will be generally available for anyone to take on a
voluntary basis.If they wish, faculty
can take the training at a convenient time before the fall.More information about passwords and ITSAT
can be found at http://strongpassword.gmu.edu.

The committee will meet eight times during the
2010-2011 academic year (the last of those meetings is scheduled for May 3,
2011). The committee’s charge includes: advising the director of “Writing
Across the Curriculum,” approval of new writing-intensive (WI) courses, regular
review of WI course syllabi, and assisting with activities and events related
to Writing Across the Curriculum.

§Conducted fourth WI syllabi collection in all
fall 2010 WI courses to verify compliance with WI requirements. Collected 72
syllabi, which represented the 47 WI courses offered during the Fall 2010
semester.Completed Report on WI Syllabi Review of Fall 2010 WI Course that was sent to
all deans, directors, chairs and the Provost.

§Conducted a brief review of WI requirements at
other universities around the US.

§Reviewed the types of writing (i.e., formal vs.
informal) assigned to students in WI courses.

§Reviewed the graduating seniors’ writing
experiences on the annual graduating senior surveys.Will send results to appropriate
departments/units in the beginning of fall 2011.

§Reviewed the WI course requirements, discussing:
whether to divide the requirement between a lower-lever course and an
upper-level course, the number of credits of the required WI course, and the
overall language of the WI requirement.

§Reviewed the history of the WI requirement.

§Discussed
adding the committee’s consultants to the Faculty Senate’s website.

§Encouraged
faculty to send ESL students to the Writing Center’s Opt-in ESL Support
Program.

§Produced
the fall 2010 Teaching with Writing
Across the Curriculum newsletter in both print and online formats at http://wac.gmu.edu/program/newsletter/. The spring 2011 newsletter,
focusing on second-language writers, will be out sometime in May 2011.

Other program activities in
consultation with the WAC committee:

§Developed WIN(ning) initiative for writing-infused
programs in collaboration with Social Work, English, Art and Visual Technology
(AVT), Philosophy, and Criminology, Law and Society (CLS), and School of
Management, Management (SOM).WIN
Workshop is set for May 19th.

§The George
Mason Review 2010-2011, a student publication of writing across the
disciplines, was published and available to pick up.

The Faculty
Handbook Revision Committee was comprised of Jim Bennett (Economics), Suzanne
Slayden (Chemistry) and Richard Coffinberger (Management). The Committee met
frequently during the Fall semester of 2010 and during the first half-of the
Spring semester of 2011. The Committee developed a set of recommended changes
to the Faculty Handbook most of which were endorsed by the Provost and his
staff and approved by the Faculty Senate at its April meeting. The final
recommended changes included recommendations developed by a parallel committee
organized by Brian Walther of the University’s Office of General Counsel and
vetted by the Handbook Revision Committee. The University’s Board of Visitors
will consider the recommended Handbook changes at its May meeting.

2.FACULTY SENATE TASK FORCE
TO EXAMINE THE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN GEORGE MASON UNIVERSITY AND PRIVATE DONORS –
Dave Kuebrich (CHSS), Chair

Responsibility
for the governance of George Mason University is vested by the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia in the Rector and Board of Visitors. Members of the
Board of Visitors are appointed by the Governor of the Commonwealth to serve
fixed terms of four years. The Rector is a member of the Board, elected by the
Board to serve as its chair.

Without limiting the generality of
its powers, the Board of Visitors exercises its authority principally in policy
making and oversight. With the exception of meetings convened in executive
session, meetings of the Board of Visitors and its committees are open to the
public. The chair of the Faculty Senate sits as a non-voting representative to
the full Board. The voting membership of the General Faculty (see SUection 1.3.1UH) shall elect a non-voting representative to all standing
committees of the Board, except the Audit Committee (see below). To accomplish
this, the Faculty Senate shall conduct elections biennially. The candidates
will come from the voting membership of the General Faculty. The Faculty Senate
will notify the Rector of the outcome of the election. A separate faculty
member may be selected by the Board to serve as a nonvoting, faculty liaison to
the Audit Committee.No faculty member may serve concurrently on more than one
committee. No faculty member can serve more than three consecutive 2-year
terms, although subsequent reelection is permitted.

Motion: Delete final sentence, paragraph 2 of Section 1.1of the Faculty Handbook which states: “No
faculty member can serve more than three consecutive 2-year terms, although
subsequent reelection is permitted.”

Rationale: Term limits
are arbitrary and violative of democratic principles of free choice in
electoral process and representation.

ATTACHMENT G

Faculty Senate Resolution Recommending the
Establishment of a Ombudsman or a Committee to Collect Information on
Complaints and Concerns Regarding Campus Police Actions

WHEREAS in response to various actions taken by the Campus Police,
President Merten has convened a “Presidential Task
Force to seek input for members of the Mason community on their interactions
and experiences with the University Police Department”; and

WHEREAS members of the University community have expressed concerns and
complaints at the Task Force’s meetings regarding various Police actions; and

WHEREAS no “voice mechanism” currently exists where complaints about Police
actions can be reported and collected;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Faculty Senate that the Presidential Task Force
be urged to recommend in its final report to the Central Administration that an
Ombudsperson be appointed or that a Committee be established to collect and
document complaints and concerns about the actions of Mason’s Police
Department.